After all, it is conceivable that some future congress can actually do something to turn back the obscene spending increases we've seen out of George Bush. Not likely, but conceivable. It is far more likely, however, that if we see an appeasement-oriented Democrat take the reigns next year we'll see not only the same level of spending (if not worse) but a weakened posture against Islamic terrorism that will end up costing us lives .... thousands of lives, perhaps tens of thousands.

The bottom line here is that no matter how disgusting Bush's spending might be, no matter how offensive it might be to his core conservative base, there is no Democrat running in this race who would spend any less. Every single Democrat running for congress has a new-spending agenda that ranges from a low of $169 billion a year for Joseph Lieberman, to a high of $1.3 trillion a year for Al "The Liar" Sharpton. Now it's true that every single one of these candidates promises to raise taxes on the evil, ugly, nasty, putrid rich by overturning Bush's tax cuts, but that would only put about $135 billion back in the budget (and that's not counting any reduction in tax revenue caused by the resulting economic slowdown). So each and every Democratic candidate would increase the budget deficit. The frontrunner, John Kerry, would increase the deficit by about $130 billion a year.

So ... a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situation here. Vote for Bush and you get runaway government spending, but you also get a strong defense and an aggressive war against the Islamic terrorists who want to kill as many Americans as they can, on our own soil if possible, and to destroy the American way of life. Vote for a Democrat and you get the same runaway government spending, but as an added bonus you get the appeasement of our enemy, instead of its destruction. Vote for Bush and you get some appeals court judges who actually have an appreciation of our Constitution .. plus runaway spending. Vote for a Democrat and you get activists judges who will use judicial fiat to enact the leftist agenda ... plus runaway spending.

I understand the strong impulse to punish Bush for his free spending ways by withholding your support in November. The price for sitting on hands could be huge. It could be another terrorist attack on American soil, this time with tens of thousands dead. It could be higher spending, a bigger deficit, and a slowed economy brought on by higher taxes. It could be the end of a dream of Social Security reform ... and the list goes on.

And then ... there's always the hope that in a second Bush term he could actually start dancing with who brung him.


No doubt, I'm taking a lot of heat from my fellow Libertarian Party members for my support of the war against Iraq and my support for Bush's reelection. I can count nearly 1000 emails in recent months from listeners who consider themselves to have libertarian leanings, but who just can't bring themselves to throw their support behind a party that won't support military action against a group of radicals who have not only threatened, but promised our destruction.

World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism aside, this country is still proceeding on that steady path to socialism and an end to economic liberty. If this slide is to be abated it will be libertarian ideals that pave the way. This election still affords Americans a chance to send a libertarian message to our elected officials. Libertarians will be on the ballots in every one of the 50 states in November. They'll be running for local as well as national offices. The support for Bush and his war on terror must remain in place, but a surge in votes for Libertarian candidates at the local level will send the clear message that a movement for freedom, economic liberty and limited government is underway.


Let's see ... Howard Dean entertains the idea that Bush knew about the Islamic terrorist attacks of 9/11 before they happened ... and did nothing. He says that Americans are no safer now than they were before 9/11, or since Saddam Hussein was captured. He also says that Iraqis are no better off now than then they were under Saddam. Now Howard Dean is saying that Vice President Cheney pressured intelligence officials to fudge their findings and then used that fudged intelligence to pressure George Bush into deposing Saddam. Cheney, you understand, makes a good target because he ran a highly successful company that does a lot of government work. Now never mind that David Kay testified before congress that he found absolutely no evidence of any manipulation of intelligence information. Dean just plows ahead with his own agenda. But why worry about Dean? He's toast. It's over. So ... never mind.


In Federalist No. 45 James Madison wrote " "...[T]he States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty..."

Yeah, right. Somebody tell that to the 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators in Washington who clearly have other ideas.


If "illegal aliens" are "undocumented workers," then the 9/11 hijackers were "undocumented pilots."